Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West coast phreakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West coast phreakers

Nominator votes delete, because this group is too non-notable (only 293 Googles). King of Hearts | (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree, this is a well known group. Just because you have not heard of it doesn't mean its "non notable" -- —the preceding unsigned comment is by Smes (talk • contribs)
    • Above by User:Smes, the creator of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, 46 unique Google hits. It's hard to make hacker groups notable, and this one doesn't meet the bar. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: therefore the bar needs to be lowered for underground groups related to art/hacking/phreaking/etc because they generally don't get (or want) public attention. Just because they are quiet/underground doesn't mean articles such as West coast phreakers aren't important examples to other topics at wikipedia such as Phreaking. If you look at West coast phreakers from a phreakers perspective, it appears to be highly notable. (see below, rewritten) --Phanton 07:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definately non-notable. Alr 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So what if its non-notable? Is wikipedia pressed for space or something? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Smes (talk • contribs)
  • Thats crap. Talk to any Canadian Phreak or Hacker and they will know what West Coast Phreakers is.smes
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate depository of information. Please read WP:CIVIL as well. Alr 01:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. If this group achieves verifiable notability (such as an article in a major newspaper) then the article can be recreated. Durova 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, when you've got some accomplishments to include, then it belongs in an encyclopedia. Future potential isn't grounds for an article now. Night Gyr 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity ("The co-founder of the group, smes, is quite illusive of where exactly he is from usually only making vague statements to his location such as “Vancouver Island”, or south of Drunken Duncan.") —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 02:01Z
  • Comment: This has now been cleaned up and resolved. --Phanton 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Evil Eye 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 02:26, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have updated the article and added some more content which can be verified. Given the nature of phreaking groups generally being 'underground' and quiet to the outside world, 293 google hits is not actually that bad. I think this article on West coast phreakers is quite important to the topic of Phreaking, and it is an article that can be updated constantly, as the group is still alive and making publications. There aren't too many examples of modern phreaking groups on wikipedia, and this one would serve as a great example in the Phreaking article. (see below where I have rewritten this) --Phanton 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with groups such as this are as much about WP:V as anything. To much verification and they end up at her majesties' pleasure. And while I agree that these guys appear somewhat notable in their zone, unfortunately that's not the criterion. Delete without prejudice or malice. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Concerning WP:V, The publications they produce are collected from a variety of independent sources not affiliated with West coast phreakers. But these are not the focus of the article. The article itself is more a summary of the group including what it does, its history, etc. There is hardly a better source for this sort of information than their official website and their magazine issues which have been copied around the internet and archived in their original form. --Phanton 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, I'm not sure vanity is a concern here, but from WP:VAIN: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. - see Phone losers of america for a similar phreaking group article, although that article is more indepth at the moment. (see below) --Phanton 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also a little note regarding other phreaking group articles at wikipedia. The only other phreaking group which has an article listed in Category:Phreaking is Phone losers of america. Given the underground nature of the phreaking topic, its importance to 1980-1990 telecommunications history and the lack of examples on wikipedia (important!), it would probably help people researching phreaking by keeping West coast phreakers. --Phanton 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I googled this, and it came up with 752 results - almost none related to the group itself, except for postings to boards and such like by the group themselves. A high number of google hits in itself is not indicative of notability. Entering my name (my real name I mean) brings up over 1,000 results, but I'm still not notable (with the exception of a shitstorm I accidentally caused on NewsForge once :-) ) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - 1) Not yet particularly notable. I checked around and only one of my friends had even heard of this group. 2) Terrible 'zine. We were producing far better material than WCP's back in the 1980s, when BBSes reigned and the Internet was a wet dream. You need better content, smes. 3) If they manage to accomplish anything in the next few months and word gets out, I would be more inclined to vote 'keep', and even help edit the article- it would be a pleasure, but only if they do work on their end as well, like learning something besides cell freqs, which any n00b can snag from bottom-feeders in the scene. And red boxes? Come on.... Put some better instructions and designs on your site, smes. Tone generators are old hat. We have far better rigs we can make these days, even with the usual crap parts from the jerks at Radio Smack. Good start, and points for reviving the scene in your end of n-space... but you gots no cred yet. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V. Also, Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. Zunaid 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. I love the comment that the mag has been compared with 2600 - "Compared with 2600, this is crap" would count :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Who's the asshat that directly compared WCP to 2600? Originially I only compared them as both print mags, nothing else! User: smes>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.